Critical Thinking vs "Mere Reasoning."

I have been contemplating the distinction between critical thinking and reasoning since class on Wednesday. I suggested in class that seems that there is no discernible distinction between critical thinking and reasoning. Having applied further thought, I would like to attempt to defend this position.

A good starting point would be the definitions of each. To try to be as clear as possible, I will take my definitions from what I hope is a reputable source: dictionary.com

According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion." Reasoning is "the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises" (which is much more acceptable than "the act or process of a person who reasons," a type of definition that should never appear in a dictionary).

The dictionary definition, then, would seem to state that reasoning takes its premises as given, whereas critical thinking first evaluates those premises before drawing its conclusions. But this seems to make little sense. After all, basic logic tells us that, for an argument to be true, it must be based upon true premises. And how do we determine the veracity of premises save for the evaluation of them in the face of other information and experiences we have?

Perhaps, then, this means that, while a logical argument can be true or false, sound or unsound, critical thinking can only be true, as it takes a broad view and assures the veracity of one's claims right off the bat. This too, however, falls into the trap of an artificial distinction. If one performs an act of critical thinking which is then later shown to be invalid or logically unsound in the face of new information, does the original act of critical thinking become invalidated, "downgraded" to "mere reasoning" from "critical thinking?" I would say not.

What, then, of the proposal that critical thinking includes a crucial (critical?) element of ACTING upon the conclusions one comes to via this process? Another artificial distinction. If one reasons to a conclusion, it is only natural for one act accordingly, unless there are significant barriers to doing so -- prejudice, habituation, or a multitude of other reasons that may prevent us from acting as we deem best.

To end with a question: How might one seek to foster the skills requisite for reasoning in students?